How does copyright laws work?

[twister]

OK, I need your advice about something. I have been making remixes from acapella versions of various dance songs. Specifically, I have been a huge fan of music published by one of the Italian label from mid 90's where they released every single maxi single with a vocal-only acapella version of their songs. They haven't released anything at all in the past 4-5 years, so I made 2003/2004 eurotrance versions of their 90's hits, and tried to e-mail it to the record label directly. Since, they had some problems receiving my e-mail with mp3 attachments, I just created a very simple webpage where I put these songs for an eassy access for that record label only. To my surprise, they send me a very nasty reply saying that Italian police has been notified about my illegal activity, and I'm breaking all kinds of copyrighted laws, and even so all of the remix work is totally original and now copyrighted by me - they still own it because vocals are theirs and they are warning me about consequences.

I just could not believe that reply. I'm not releasing or selling these remixes. It was only intended for their eyes and ears only to get a feedback about my work and maybe get them interested in releasing my remixes under their label? How can they own my material and what kind of a copyright do I have for my remix? Is it OK to post my songs with vocals muted out? What about if I ask someone else to sing for me the same vocals? They actually wrote in their reply that "people like me are killing the music business around with world" ?!?! WTF?!?! I was very surprised, considering all the good intentions I had sending them my remix demos. I actually thought I could help them out since they only used to concentrate on one genre of music (eurodance) and stopped all their releases many years ago. Weird stuff... I guess now, all have to do is sit and wait when Italian police will know on my doors here in NJ

[pljones]

I am not a lawyer...

OK, I need your advice about something. I have been making remixes from acapella versions of various dance songs. Specifically, I have been a huge fan of music published by one of the Italian label from mid 90's where they released every single maxi single with a vocal-only acapella version of their songs.

Fine for your own use.

They haven't released anything at all in the past 4-5 years, so

Uh, "so"..? It's irrelevant when someone last did something as to whether their rights over some item of intellectual property exist or not.

I made 2003/2004 eurotrance versions of their 90's hits, and tried to e-mail it to the record label directly.

Dumb. They've never heard of you and you dump a few meg of "something" in their inbox.

I'd have deleted it instantly as I do with an unsolicited attachments.

Since, they had some problems receiving my e-mail with mp3 attachments, I just created a very simple webpage where I put these songs for an eassy access for that record label only.

Your intent here is irrelevant. Was the access actually restricted to anyone and had you previously agreed how you would identify people from the record label? If not, you were acting irresponsibly with someone else's property.

To my surprise,

Uh...

they send me a very nasty reply saying that Italian police has been notified about my illegal activity, and I'm breaking all kinds of copyrighted laws, and even so all of the remix work is totally original and now copyrighted by me - they still own it because vocals are theirs and they are warning me about consequences.

That's all a bit mixed up.

Unless you've explicitly arranged a private communications mechanism with the company concerned, you probably have breached their copyright.

They do own the copyright in their intellectual property (assuming everything you've said is accurate).

Your only rights are in the work you did: for instance, if you have a Cubase project file containing the samples and the mix/master arrangement, then the Cubase file is yours. The samples are not yours. And the output of the project is a derived work of the samples, so the owner of the original work has rights over what you can do with the derived work.

I just could not believe that reply.

Uh...

I'm not releasing or selling these remixes.

Generally not relevant in criminal cases. If they were to seek civil damages, this might limit what they could get out of you.

It was only intended for their eyes and ears only to get a feedback about my work and maybe get them interested in releasing my remixes under their label?

Again, the intent isn't necessarily relevant.

How can they own my material and what kind of a copyright do I have for my remix?

See above.

Is it OK to post my songs with vocals muted out?

So long as you're not using anyone else's material without permission, e.g. uncleared samples, then probably.

What about if I ask someone else to sing for me the same vocals?

The lyrics are subject to a separate copyright from the recording and you're also not allowed to derive a work from the lyrics without permission.

They actually wrote in their reply that "people like me are killing the music business around with world" ?!?! WTF?!?! I was very surprised, considering all the good intentions I had sending them my remix demos. I actually thought I could help them out since they only used to concentrate on one genre of music (eurodance) and stopped all their releases many years ago. Weird stuff... I guess now, all have to do is sit and wait when Italian police will know on my doors here in NJ

Well, it does appear a little OTT - perhaps the US English to Italian translator didn't work?

[tee boy]

Unfortunately mate, they are correct. Copyright in music is threefold - the right to copy the recording (phonographic), the right to copy the music (mechanical), and the right to perform the music (either live or via broadcast). If you use an acapella to remix a song, then post it on the net you are without doubt in violation of the first two, and probably the third to boot.

However, since you are not selling these remixes its unlikely any action can be taken against you further than a cease and desist letter. DJ's are always making unoffical remixes and playing them in their sets. Did you hear that Deep Dish track with the Eminem sample in? That was played constantly on Radio 1. So as long as you dont intend to release any of those tracks i shouldnt fret.

The reason labels release these acapella CD's and vinyls is a way of milking cash from their back catelogue. The idea is that they provide you with vocals to remix on the off chance that you might make a hit, in which case they would be in for a fatty-boom-batty of a cut! Was it the Media Classics CD you bought? The one with all the old 49er's and Cappella vocals on?

[twister]

I like those too, but it was actually all the music from DWA Records. They released most of their Ice MC, Double You, and Alexia maxis with bonus acapellas. And, I got suckered in

BTW, all my work was done in FL Studio using only VSTi instruments. No samples from original production were used. I guess, the whole issue here is with use of original vocals and posting it on the net. I already deleted that page, whatever... And, maybe it was a problem with the whole English to Italian misunderstanding. It was just upsetting that I took my time, made a totally original production, and ask them for a feedback - while being slammed back with that reply.

I have e-mailed my remixes to a number of well respected dance producers before (almost all of them in Germany), and always got a possitive feedback, sometime even with comments what to do to improve my production. This was a surprise to me So, I guess I learned my lesson, and will have to ask my wife to sing for me the next time

[baggio]

Twister - I wouldn't worry about too much. While if you interpret the law literally you have breached a copyright, the chances of receiveing a writ anytime soon are fairly remote as you are not distributing the songs and are not seeking to make a profit from them. I think record companies have enough too worry about.

[pljones]

Have to agree with baggio, really -- either whoever you contacted was having a bad English day or the company are doing so badly suing anyone looks like the only way to make money these days..!

I pretty much only use free samples... (I include CM mag ones in "free".) It's very restricting to find a fantastic sound has no written clearance from a trustworthy source. It's a complete writeoff when there's no attributed source at all. The fact that the samples are "free" doesn't stop someone from owning them and my use infringing their rights, unless they've explicitly granted a licence to use them...

[twister]

Good point about CM samples. So, if I'm gonna write a song using free CM vocal samples (those moaning vocal samples they had on a CD awhile back ), it will be totally copyright free and I can sell it to a record company?

[Megazoid]

i would be intrested in hearing these remixes because i'm also producing eurodance/trance music (think rank 1/above & beyond) in flstudio. Been using alot of acapellas as well (but for non-commercial reasons). Infact i've emailed a few already commercial producers (lasgo, sylver, etc) and a few have personally sent me acapella's for my own usuage (As long as it's nothing to generate an income). It's weird you would get this reaction.

I might be looking for a partner/teamup with another producer and intrested in hearing your work. Maybe PM me some of the link's? would like to chat...

[MrM]

What you are doing is a remix, or a cover version. Both still are under the copyright of the original artist, but you have added something; your arrangment is from you. While you hold the copyright of the arrangement, the original melody, harmony and other source material was not created by you, and you need permission to use those parts.

You cannot simply add a brick to a building and say it is your design
You cannot make a duplicate and call it 'my version', my work, the copyright is mine.
You have to seriuosly alter it, and even using short fragments without permission is not permitted.

[lanark]

"people like me are killing the music business around with world"

WTF...

Copyright restrictions are killing music as a whole, not their F tiny business.

Let's go Creative Commons

There are a LOT of freely reusable material under that licenses, and a LOT of that LOT is really good.

Regards!

[Megazoid]

just wanted to add i've heard twister's music now, and he is doing anything BUT wasting music. He is a talented producer with some great remixes. Shame that situation will arrise, with that said i am intrested in a collab and will be emailing you back soon twister!

[pljones]

Good point about CM samples. So, if I'm gonna write a song using free CM vocal samples (those moaning vocal samples they had on a CD awhile back ), it will be totally copyright free and I can sell it to a record company?

No, no - don't lose sight of what copyright means. The CM samples are licensed to be "royalty free" (generally - they occasionally supply samples with non-free clauses). This means they retain copyright but grant you a license to use the samples in your work without having to pay anything. Essentially free.

Note however that, while I've done sfz format mappings of a lot of the sample sets, I cannot redistribute the samples (even in another format, such as SF2) - this is against the license.

The license is horribly wooly, really but a court would probably agree with the intent. They include a clause along the lines of "it would be nice to get a mention or maybe a copy of your number one hit", if I remember correctly. RTFLicense

To summarise: everything is forbidden unless you have (or provide, if appropriate) a written, clear statement permitting you to do something.

[twister]

OK, now I heard enough of this legal copyright crap From now on, I will be making only instrumental remixes, and the only vocal samples I'm planning to use will be farts out of my arse

But seriously, I have e-mailed the same record company long time ago with some of my early work. Their reply was "your work sounds crappy". Now, when I actually made a decent remix which is good enough to be released, they're giving me all this legal crap. I actually just e-mailed them back telling that I want THEM to release my work if they find it good enough, so THEY would make money of this release. Lets see how those dumbasses going to reply to this twist of events

[freeztar]

Copyright laws have always puzzled me. I'm not a DJ so I don't sweat it too much, but sometimes I wonder...How far can I go?

Fortunately, I'm much happier creating my own samples and being original in some way or another. Ahhhhh, if only the world were run by love instead of money. :sigh:

[jeroleen]

There is something called a compulsory license. It applies to the copyright, not necessarily the mechanical rights. The solution in such a situation is to simply remove their vocal and put your own on. It can be exactly the same, in other words, an exact imitation. It just can not be the same performance they used.

There are issues in this instance regarding international copyright I believe. I get the impression that you are not from Italy.

It would therefore depend on the various applicable laws of each country and where the copying is being done.

I will check this tomorrow, I have a reference book somwhere at work. Just out of curiousity I want to see what exactly is applicable.

For the most part, if a foreign publisher accuses you of infringement, unless you are raking in the big bucks, there is not mouch to worry about. They wo uld be foolish to commence an action against you unless there was significant money involved.

Under the circumstances, if there is significant money involved, they would be foolish to not make a deal with you. As I said, you may have rights under a compusory license. Or, you may have been contacted by a holder of some but not all applicable copyrights. Others may be happy to have you work thier material and make them more money whereas the nasty letter writer could just be a stick in the mud or jealous or whatever.

The point is that the issues are never that black and white and each situation has to be taken on a case by case basis. The truly baffling thing here is the fact that you were presenting the material to them as an alternative way for them to use and market it. If they are the publisher, I would think they have a good faith obligation to tell the writers about a potential use of their music.

Frankly, I think you are probably on to something and should continue doing what you are doing just because you got such a reaction. If you did not get any reaction, it might indicate that you are not perceived as commercially viable and therefore not a threat. Because they believe you are a threat, you must therefore be commerically viable. At least in the eyes of that particular company.

In other words, it appears you hit a nerve and, after all, that is part of what we try to do in the music biz.

One last thing, by the way, I am in New York City and when I speak of copyright law, I am mostly referring to the laws in the United States. Although I am by no means an expert in this area, I do believe that there are many international treaties by which various countries share copyright laws. I also believe that this is a very dynamic area of law these days mostly due to the internet, MP3s and so forth.

Anyway, good luck and try not to be intimidated. If someone is trying to stop you, you probably have something to say.

VTY,

JW